The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XSQL[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Below-par article on a non-notable technology, produced by a moribund project.

This product's claim to fame is based on having a four-character name beginning with X (Don't underestimate these, it was the fashion around 2000). The idea is a simple one (although the article fails to clarify this) - to make an XML dialect for expressing SQL, rather than using the well-established SQL syntax. Note that it is not a query language for querying XML documents - that's a different problem (See XQL or even SPARQL).

The problems in a WP sense are an evident lack of notability. As the project appears to have become dormant around 2002, it seems unlikely that this will ever change in the future.

Technically (and I understand this to be an irrelevance) the project appears mis-directed anyway. It's likely the result of the "Let's express <foo> in XML!" enthusiasm of the early 2000s. Not everything that can be expressed in XML is useful to express in XML. There are also technical holes in the project: Why is Perl so crucial? Isn't the whole point of XML expression being that it makes you coding language independent? Does this express DDL, or just DML? If SQL must be expressed in XML, then there are similar projects, like Apache Torque, that would seem to be doing a better job of this.

If the project were live, promising and looked likely to grow I wouldn't nominate this. However it's both clearly non-notable today and, with these off-wiki technical caveats, is also unlikely to improve. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also note (although don't see this as reason to delete) that the page was the creation of banned user Fatal!ty (talk · contribs)
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- samj _in^out 07:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any Dingley's analysis is spot-on (everything he says is true, though some of the points are not pertinent to the deletion). Mhkay (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not worthy Can I inscribe that inside my dog-eared and coffee-stained copy of the big red XSLT book? 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing really to add; simply not notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.